Share your reaction to the gay marriage decision
Massachusetts's highest court ruled 4-3 that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples who challenged the law. The court ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Excellent and significant since it comes during a period that we are remembering President John F. Kennedy. After all he started the civil rights movement in this country. We've come a long way in 40 years. Sad that there are those who feel that it's more important to turn the clocks back to the 50's than to live in the 21st century.
Wow, we should hire these 7 couples to fight how companies such as Citizens bank and verizon wirless rip the hard working people in the state off.
Great news! I am proud of living in a state that will lead the rest of the nation into the 21st century!
Can you believe all the married women who are posting to this site? Did they, as PROPERTY of their husbands get permission to do that? Oh, that's right, we changed marriage statutes to indicate that women and men were equal in a marriage. Thank goodness! Thank goodness we're doing that again. It's about time we all looked at society through a modern lens and then looked at what we take for granted through the contemporary lenses of the past. Years from now, this will be no big deal, except in history books.
This is a just ruling that hopefully signals increasing acceptance and support in our for same sex couples.
Mary Jo, Newton, MA
This will mobilize the gay and lesbian community and their allies like no other issue. If legislators and the governor vote to keep us on the fringes of society, I have a feeling that you'll see significant turnover come election time. One point that never seems to be addressed: Hypothetically, a man and a woman can meet randomly on the street, get a marriage license, and get married, and even without any prior relationship history, they will instantly have more rights than a gay or lesbian couple that has been in a committed relationship for 25 years. Tell me that there isn't something wrong with that.
It's about time. And for those of you with comments about God, marriage does not necessarily have ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD! It is a legal CONTRACT. If it had anything to do with God then your every day courthouse JOP weddings would not be recognized, yet they are. Now if only we can get it fully legalized.
It makes me really sad to think that there are people posting who are so stupid that they do not know that we are all created equal. Everyone should be offered the same rights. If you think hiding behind 'God' justifies your narrowmindedness, then please remember, yours is the same god who created people who are gay as well as straight. As someone who is straight, I applaud Massachusetts and the SJC decision. If you have a problem with it, pack up your bible and move down south - we have no tolerance for intolerance here.
Sandy, moving back to town soon
The Court overstepped its bounds of authority. There is no "right" to marry whoever we "choose." If two married people wanted to marry each other (before getting divorced), they can't. If a 30-year old wanted to marry an 8-year old, they can't. If I wanted to marry my sister, I can't. The state has legitimate interests in defining who can marry each other. There is no discrimination to any individual in prohibiting marriage to heterosexual couples - we can just marry someone of age, who isn't married, who isn't related to a certain degree, who's of the opposite sex, etc. I have same-sex couple friends that I like very much who raise 2 good kids. I respect their rights to be together. I'd prefer that they have an opportunity for a civil union for the betterment of their family. But this Court is trying to change the very definition of civil marriage in a big abuse of their authority. I wish we could call a special election tomorrow to pass a constitutional amendment and to impeach these judges. Stripped of their jobs, perhaps they'd run for the legislature. At least in that way, they'd be in the right branch of goverment for what they'd want to do.
Bill E., Hyannis
I support the decision completely. I think the religious arguments against gay marriage have no value, for this reason: if your church or religious institutions, whether it be the Catholic Church, a church of any Protestant denomination, an Orthodox synagogue, a Mosque, or otherwise, refuses to marry a same sex marriage in a RELIGIOUS ceremony due to religious principles, there's nothing stopping them from taking that stand. What this decision does is say the state will recognize such a marriage (in the eyes of the state, "in the eyes of God" is not the state's concern). Just as the state recognize's heterosexual marriages that do not live up to "religious principles"--couples who don't have children, couples who marry out of economic convenience, couples who do not believe in God, etc.--so too should it recognize homosexual couples. Whether one or another church recognizes them, well, that's not really any of the state's concern, or mine.